Science and Religious Belief

[Kenngo1969]

... I think she wrote as if she did not know we had a brain at all. ...

What part of "created to act for ourselves and not merely to be acted upon" do you not understand (see 2 Nephi 2:13-14)?

[Ralph Man]

Feel free to write to her and ask whether she would agree that she rejects neurophysiology. psychology, behavioral ecology, and biology generally. You can probably figure out how to reach her from one of the links that she supplies in her bio.

I don't think that is necessary. You supplied us with a testimony already explaining her position. And her position strongly suggests that she rejects important ideas generally accepted in neurophysiology, psychology, biology...

Her understanding of the biology of ambulation and endorsement of some kind of hard mind/body dualism and/or vitalism to explain animal movement would be embarrassing if submitted to a high school teacher, yet here it is posted as a glorious testament to something or other.

[Ralph Man]

I wouldn't think so.... Max Planck, Newton, Galileo.

IIRC 39% or so of US scientists are theists. 70%+ of US doctors are theists.

Seeing how ~90% of the population are theists, this has the opposite implication you seem to think it does. I agree that it is a complicated question, but you aren't doing yourself any favors here.

[semlogo]

Fundamentalism is hostile to science. But otherwise, no, religion doesn't dampen interest in science.

[LDSToronto]

I don't think that is necessary. You supplied us with a testimony already explaining her position. And her position strongly suggests that she rejects important ideas generally accepted in neurophysiology, psychology, biology...

Her understanding of the biology of ambulation and endorsement of some kind of hard mind/body dualism and/or vitalism to explain animal movement would be embarrassing if submitted to a high school teacher, yet here it is posted as a glorious testament to something or other.

Come on, guys, this isn't really fair. I am trained in mathematics and computer science; ask me a question about biology or physiology, or chemistry, even some classical physics, and I'm as dumb as the next guy - heck, I might even give you a wrong answer that is based on a belief of how I think things should work, or how I recall them to work based on some freshmen class I took in university or even way back in high school. Yet, I can talk all day about maths, algebra, theory of languages, etc.

This engineer who you are all lambasting is probably in the same boat, only she had the courage and conviction to display her beliefs to all of you. Fine, she's not completely correct with what she said; she also wasn't writing a research paper. Doesn't mean that Joseph Smith was a false prophet....

As for Mormonism being at odds with science - our Church promotes education in all fields. And, while I don't call myself a scientist - no self-respecting mathematician would - religion has opened my eyes up to humanity, and has broadened my perspective beyond what science can teach.

H.

[Daniel Peterson]

1.

And her position strongly suggests that she rejects important ideas generally accepted in neurophysiology, psychology, biology...

Which, even if true, would be rather different than rejecting neurophysiology, psychology, and biology as such, no? Yet that is what Hume manqu

[Tarski]

Come on, guys, this isn't really fair. I am trained in mathematics and computer science; ask me a question about biology or physiology, or chemistry, even some classical physics, and I'm as dumb as the next guy - heck, I might even give you a wrong answer that is based on a belief of how I think things should work, or how I recall them to work based on some freshmen class I took in university or even way back in high school. Yet, I can talk all day about maths, algebra, theory of languages, etc.

And yet this is the "profound" thinking that supports this person's "testimony"! There is a lesson to be learned here.

Wasn't there supposed to be a point to these people being smart (or at least successful in their field)?

I can't count how many times I hear of someone really smart who believes in some supernatural stuff. Talking to such a person or reading what they write about their subject shows they really are intelligent and talented at getting things done. But, when the question of why they believe comes up, suddenly we hear some pretty ridiculous nonscientific stuff--usually far fetched rationalizations involving science that they know far less about, or simply sentimentalism totally unconnected to the intellect. Francis Collins and his pretty water fall come to mind in the latter category while in the former category we have the unbelievable case of Frank Tipler whose has ability to spin out fanciful and often self contradictory physics based rationalizations of a Christianity is unsurpassed (a decidedly non-Mormon version of Christianity).

Another type of testimony we here from academic Mormons is the pragmatic type that seems to focus on the social oy psychological benefits of the relgion with the occasional hint that much of it might be metaphor anyway ("I know the Book of Mormon is "true" because it blesses my life").

For many people, being happy and comforted is more important than the literal truth.

[Daniel Peterson]

Have you, Tarski, ever expressed any opinions regarding matters outside your specific technical expertise?

Do you imagine that everybody who encountered them has always been awestruck by them?

Is it possible that not everybody is awestruck at this very moment? (Hint: Yes. I speak from personal knowledge.)

I won't argue testimonies or personal expressions with you. I haven't asked contributors to "Mormon Scholars Testify" for arguments -- have, in fact, explicitly said that I didn't expect such -- and won't blind-side or betray them by treating their submissions as arguments (successful or failed). But I do think that you're rather completely missing the point. It is, in a sense, a kind of "category mistake."

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's pretty simple, imo. Religion can certainly discourage interest in scientific pursuits. But "religion" here is being used to encompass a huge array of perspectives. "Religion" so vaguely named doesn't discourage interest in science by necessity, of course. Conversely we could ask whether science discourages the religious pursuit. I would say it can actually replace and become a religious pursuit, but not by necessity.

[Tarski]

Is should be noted that at the other board where the question was raised in the first place, we actually see very little unqualified acceptance of the idea that religion lessens interest in science. In that thread I myself said

"Newton and most of the historically great scientists were not only religious but saw an affinity between their science and their religious life. But here we are thinking of religion more along the lines of the desire to know the mysteries of the creator and the secrets of the universe. Now we see that this is actually a motivator for scientific investigation."

I am just getting this off the top of my head but perhaps more a believable hypothesis might be that belief in, and adherence to, several of the most prominant organized religions tends to lessen people's willingness to accept some very good science since they often rightly perceive it to contradict doctrine. The problem is that these relgions have saddled themselves with just too much doctrine about too many things.

There surely is a complex and uneasy relationship between science and religion but it is not so much a question of lessening interest.

A related and interesting question is how someone highly trained in the natural sciences could be a young earth creationism. This is a question for psychology but by now we should be getting used to counter intuitive human behavior. Simply put, human behavior is often just bat dung crazy.

[Daniel Peterson]

Simply put, human behavior is often just bat dung crazy.

And not only among theists.

There surely is a complex and uneasy relationship between science and religion but it is not so much a question of lessening interest.

Thank you.

My work here is done.

[Ralph Man]

Which, even if true, would be rather different than rejecting neurophysiology, psychology, and biology as such, no? Yet that is what Hume manqu

[Tarski]

Have you, Tarski, ever expressed any opinions regarding matters outside your specific technical expertise?

Yes. However, I do believe I have considerable more awareness of general science as well as the relevant philosophical issues for science than one would get just from obtaining a Ph.D. in my field and I dare say, more than several who have submitted to MST. I don't for a second expect you to see it that way and I expect the less educated and less thoughful users of this message board to be even less impressed.

Do you imagine that everybody who encountered them has always been awestruck by them?

I don't expect my remarks to be appreciated by just anyone.

Is it possible that not everybody is awestruck at this very moment? (Hint: Yes. I speak from personal knowledge.)

On the other hand, based on prior experience with academics in the church while I was a believer, I am quite sure that if I were applying my knowledge and rhetorical skills to support Mormonism as I once did, your level of "awe" would be a bit higher and your criticisms would largely be reduced to questions of spelling and grammar.

Of course, in reality I don't expect anyone to be "awestruck" and you know it. My comments were pretty basic and obvious observations --some of which were made or hinted at by several others even on the LDS side.

I won't argue testimonies or personal expressions with you. I haven't asked contributors to "Mormon Scholars Testify" for arguments

They seem to be giving them anyway.

.

-- have, in fact, explicitly said that I didn't expect such -- and won't blind-side or betray them by treating their submissions as arguments (successful or failed).

I wouldn't expect you to. You are quite loyal and it would indeed be inappropriate for you to comment on the arguments (especially if they are weak).

.

But I do think that you're rather completely missing the point.

Perhaps, but my observations can be made anyway.

If the point is that there are Ph.D. scientists who profess to believe in Mormonism, then I think you are going to a lot of trouble to demonstrate what everyone already knows and in this case, the detailed content of the testimonies hardly matters.

But whatever the point, I am sure it can be stated in a sentence or two so please state it (again?) just to be sure we all get it.

[David Hume]

If by "religion" we mean "a system of belief that requires assent to certain articles of faith", then the proposition "religion dampens interest in science" is necessarily true. If a person takes something to be true as a matter of doctrine, they won't be interested in what science has to say about it, except to validate their preconceived belief, which is an inherently unscientific action.

Now, it may be true that religion has other characteristics that increase interest in science beyond what is normal for a human being, and that these characteristics cancel out or outweigh the dampening effects, but the fact remains that there are elements of religious belief that lessen interest in science.

[JDave]

I expect the less educated and less thoughful users of this message board to be even less impressed. ... I don't expect my remarks to be appreciated by just anyone.

Cute.

I find myself wishing that I was more impressed with your comments, so I could feel better about myself as being a more educated and more thoughtful person.

[Kenngo1969]

If by "religion" we mean "a system of belief that requires assent to certain articles of faith", then the proposition "religion dampens interest in science" is necessarily true. If a person takes something to be true as a matter of doctrine, they won't be interested in what science has to say about it, except to validate their preconceived belief, which is an inherently unscientific action.

Poppycock. Yes, if one is a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, such membership implies that one will use a certain paradigm when considering matters of faith, but that does not preclude one from using other paradigms when considering matters in other areas. Only the most hardcore of fundamentalists would demand that someone employ the same paradigm in all areas of life. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is hardly so fundamentalist. Science answers questions of how; religion answers questions of why; it's perfectly acceptable to use different paradigms when considering each type of question, I think.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If by "religion" we mean "a system of belief that requires assent to certain articles of faith", then the proposition "religion dampens interest in science" is necessarily true.

Oddly, by this definition, the scientific pursuit dampens interest in science. Hume, what happened to you?! You used to be so much more rigorous!

[Daniel Peterson]

That you'd bring her up as an example of someone whose interest in science wasn't dampened by religious beliefs seems counterproductive, in fact.

Except that, manifestly, her interest in science wasn't dampened. (In fact.) She went on to earn a Ph.D. after her conversion in a highly scientific field.

It's kinda worthless even as anecdotal evidence. If I assert the LDS faith encourages people to adopt loyalties to the Republican party (not saying that is true), it's not particularly helpful to give me a list of 100 LDS Democrats to counter that assertion.

If I had intended, by anecdotal evidence, to refer to the results of a scientifically-conducted survey, I would have been using the term anecdotal evidence in a distinctly odd way, wouldn't I?

[Ralph Man]

Except that, manifestly, her interest in science wasn't dampened. (In fact.) She went on to earn a Ph.D. after her conversion in a highly scientific field.

So? If you close of your interest to some science it is valid to say that your interest in science has been dampened. It might not be extinguished, but all dampened implies that it is lowered. If I convert to religion X and as a consequence decide that chemistry, biology, and psychology are all poppycock and worthless for investigating the world around us, religion X has lowered my interest in science even if I go on to get a Ph.D. in physics.

If I had intended, by anecdotal evidence, to refer to the results of a scientifically-conducted survey, I would have been using the term anecdotal evidence in a distinctly odd way, wouldn't I?

There are valid reasons why one might bring up anecdotes. They might illustrative of a trend one wishes to explain. They might be a basis for further inquiry. Your anecodotal evidence, however, is worthless if you want it to bear on the question of whether religion (The LDS one in particular) dampens interest in science. It doesn't help answer that question at all. So why bother? You might as well offered yourself as anecdotal evidence that all Mormons have mustaches.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You might as well offered yourself as anecdotal evidence that all Mormons have mustaches.

Where did DCP claim that all Mormons were interested in science?

[Tarski]

Tarski:

All of which answers the how of humans doing things, but not the what and the why.

It doesn't matter to my point. She thinks that humans moving around defies Newtonian mechanics.

By contrast, if I design and operate a robot, I know the answer to all three of those questions: How does it do what it does? Because that's how I designed it and how I operate it.

Most people who design a robot want control over what they do and want to keep track of why the robot does what it does.

But there is no a priori obstacle to designing a robot (using neural nets say) that can modify itself based on interaction with the environment in such a way that no one could possibly keep track of what was happening. They would eventually not be able to grok their own creation.

Clever and subtle use of a random number generators can also make the behavior of a robot inscrutable.

It is also not accurate to say that we have no idea why humans behave the way they do. There is quite a bit of knowledge and no obvious reason to suppose an in-principle barrier to explaining human behavior other than the sheer magnitude and complexity of the physical influences and opaqueness of the computational structures and "software".

Does this sound like good reasoning: "I can't figure out how that robot works or how and why is behaves as it does, therefore it is not just a robot at all but contains some nonphysical stuff (fill in the blank with a mystical sounding word like "spirit").

[Ralph Man]

Where did DCP claim that all Mormons were interested in science?

Nowhere. Did he have to in order for my point to be made? I was just illustrating an example of anecdotal evidence not being able to support a contention being made. You want another?

Here's a list of a few Mormon scientists. Therefore, I have offered useful evidence that Mormonism doesn't dampen interest in science. Uh, no you haven't. DCP might parry by pointing out he said he was just offering an anecdotal case. But that would just be acknowledging the unhelpful nature of his offer. So, again, why bother?

[Daniel Peterson]

So? If you close of your interest to some science it is valid to say that your interest in science has been dampened. It might not be extinguished, but all dampened implies that it is lowered. If I convert to religion X and as a consequence decide that chemistry, biology, and psychology are all poppycock and worthless for investigating the world around us, religion X has lowered my interest in science even if I go on to get a Ph.D. in physics.

You're really, really straining here.

The history of science is chock full and overflowiing with people who, because of elements in their worldviews, failed to recognize Problem X or to move in Direction Y. This is simply the human condition. It's not limited to, or even particularly characteristic of, religionists. Einstein didn't like elements of quantum theory because he disliked randomness. Stephen Jay Gould's Marxism constrained his views of genetic variation and human nature. And so on and so forth.

Your claim is obvious and trivial.

There are valid reasons why one might bring up anecdotes. They might illustrative of a trend one wishes to explain. They might be a basis for further inquiry. Your anecodotal evidence, however, is worthless if you want it to bear on the question of whether religion (The LDS one in particular) dampens interest in science. It doesn't help answer that question at all. So why bother?

Because I don't agree with what you've just said.

You might as well offered yourself as anecdotal evidence that all Mormons have mustaches.

Logic 101. Very useful.

If somebody had argued that Mormonism tends to discourage mustaches, it would be entirely reasonable to cite mine as anecdotal counterevidence. In the final analysis, though, Mormonism does tend to discourage mustaches, which simply says something about the weakness of anecdotage.

Gotta go. Won't be back much (if at all) before Sunday night or Monday morning.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Nowhere. Did he have to in order for my point to be made? I was just illustrating an example of anecdotal evidence not being able to support a contention being made. You want another?

My point is that your illustrated example didn't match the claim you were trying to send up. His point was that for some Mormons, religion has not "dampened" scientific interest, despite claims to the contrary (some in this very thread, see "David Hume"'s comments).

[Ralph Man]

You're really, really straining here.

The history of science is chock full and overflowiing with people who, because of elements in their worldviews, failed to recognize Problem X or to move in Direction Y. This is simply the human condition. It's not limited to, or even particularly characteristic of, religionists. Einstein didn't like elements of quantum theory because he disliked randomness. Stephen Jay Gould's Marxism constrained his views of genetic variation and human nature. And so on and so forth.

Your claim is obvious and trivial.

I think you missed my point. She's not just failing to recognize a problem or move in a given direction. She's claiming that science, in principle, can't answer a particular set of questions it quite clearly can. It closes off her interest in science investigating those questions and therefore it is perfectly reasonable to say that her interest in science has been dampened. Is this because of her religion? I don't know. Perhaps that's putting the horse before the cart as this kind of thinking led her into her current religious views as much as they were determined by them. But it does make your use of her to show that [LDS] religion doesn't dampen interest in science awfully strange.

I'm not defending the idea that the LDS religion dampens interest in science. If I were to guess, I would bet it does in certain fields where its normative views conflict with established science such as evolutionary biology, but other fields remain untouched. Usually when religion dampens someone's interest in science it is because they think their religion answers questions in a way that makes scientific pursuit seem not worth it. I'd also bet there is an apostasy spike among Ph.D. level scientists, but I don't know for sure. At the same time, the pressure to gain professional expertise to rise the ecclesiastical chain might even drive scientific interest in other fields such as chemistry. I don't know.

This is all beside the point though, as I'm merely exploring the quality of your reply here.

If somebody had argued that Mormonism tends to discourage mustaches, it would be entirely reasonable to cite mine as anecdotal counterevidence.

It wouldn't be very helpful. As I said, anecdotes do have their role. But evidence of or against broad statistical trends is not it.

...says something about the weakness of anecdotage.

Again, then why bother?